• Destide@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        That was the last government I think, wait which one do we have now it’s all blended together a bit

          • FelixCress@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            There are two sides of this coin.

            Should the rich be taxed more? Absolutely. I would personally introduce tax which keeps raising by 10% every 100k, up to 90% - irrespectively of the source of earnings so no “capital gains” gateway.

            Are some people taking the piss with benefits claims? Also absolutely yes. There was an article few weeks ago, I think in the Guardian where I think 4 benefits claimants told their stories. First one was a lady in her 50’ which used to work for a council and stopped working 30 years ago, in 90’ due to “anxiety and depression” and was never working since, relying on taxpayers - this is taking the piss.

            • slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 days ago

              Even if all claims of benefit fraud were true - would it matter? You always expect some free loading on any system. I mean have you ever had a friend who doesn’t get the rounds in, why do you keep them around? I imagine its because you value them in some other way. The benefit fraud bill is low compared to the billions sitting about in tax havens and in property.

              fine they might take the piss but its ultimately better that the system is there and the money is available in a dignified way. Do you really think getting those people back to work would be helpful to the economy? They aren’t exactly going to be motivated are they? Or are you more concerned with punishment? Because that’s a different matter altogether

            • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              Abuse of benefits systems can happen. Cutting benefits to those that need it is not the solution.

              That would require dividing a system that supports with enough human checks to make the right calls, ideally with doctors leading. The problem is, said system would cost more than the estimated 2% fraud and error that occurs so it probably isn’t worth it. If the fraud and error grows larger than that, it makes sense, but they would need to get a high quality solution right.

              • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Abuse of benefits systems can happen. Cutting benefits to those that need it is not the solution.

                No argument here. But the benefit system desperately needs tighting up so the benefits go to people who needy them - or we need to start discussing universal income idea instead.

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 days ago

    “Forced”? It is her own “rules” that are doing the forcing:

    She is also expected to squeeze future Whitehall spending plans to ensure she is on target to meet her self-imposed fiscal rules, despite weaker OBR projections

    If I went around doing something wildly unpopular because of a self-imposed people might, rightly, question my sanity.

    Some in Labour had urged Reeves to flex her fiscal rules instead of outlining future spending cuts – but the Treasury fears that any sign of indiscipline would risk spooking bond markets and driving borrowing costs up further.

    The experts I’ve heard interviewed on the radio say that is only if they increased borrowing, increasing taxes shouldn’t do that.

    At this point they have to decide if they want to piss off enough of the electorate that they won’t get voted in again or if they want the Tory press to say “Labour are bad with the economy and don’t stick to their promises” because their very wealthy mates had to cough up their fair share.

  • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Speaks volumes that Labour’s own feasibility study found it would lead to a major increase in child poverty. And yet they have doubled down and are planning further cuts.

    Labour would rather starve marginalised people than make rich people contribute a couple tenth of percent of their vast wealth. Speaks volumes.

  • casmael@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 days ago

    Bro what the fuck. Government support for the disabled and disadvantaged needs to be going up not down. The government needs to be trialling universal basic income and negative council tax not reducing fucking benefits payments to the fucking disabled what is this an episode of the thick of it? What the fucking fuck we should be in the streets in yellow vests blockading Whitehall with ikea furniture fucking hell